Predator Follow-on

[Radio]

I think BETA program is in Limbo. When someone came in to talk about RPAs at a formal course I am attending we were told, "The best Beta guys are about as good as the middle of the road guys out of pilot training...they simply don't have the same SA."

Beta 2 is close to graduating initial qual training. Beta 3 is finishing a beefed up version of Initial Flight Screening at Colorado. Betas 4 and 5 have been selected and are starting within the next 3 months. I am not sure when the new classes are going to lose the "Beta" title and just be 18X formal training, but I have heard plans are for a new class to start the pipeline each month by the end of 2010. Not sure how future classes will be selected.

I am a simple man and it would seem to me the answer is NOT to train more dudes...NOT to create UAV only pilots who lack SA. The answer has to be technology. We need to develop systems that allow one pilot to fly multiple systems and only intervene when completely necessary. We need to develop sensors that don't simply stare at one spot or are limited to a soda-straw view of the battlespace. When we can open our aperture and have one person controlling 4-8-12 RPAs with each RPA have a field of view and field of regard that covers many miles in a single look, then we will have arrived at something we can sustain.

Oh...and I am completely in favor of putting GCS' in move favorable places like Fl, Co, Ca, and Hi.

Preface - I am a beta guy, so my POV is obviously jaded.

I like the idea of GCSs around the world and I agree that the answer isn't dudes without SA. However, are the guys dropping RPAs from UPT middle of their class? Unless we want to go back to TAMIing dudes half way through their first fighter assignment, isn't it an improvement to have eager volunteers coming into the community at 10% of the cost and bringing skills equivalent to "middle of the road guys out of pilot training"?

[TAMInated]

I would say job satisfaction varies wildly based on backgrounds. For me, the job is NEVER challenging and almost never rewarding. For those who think we kill all the time, realize that it's not nearly as often as the fighters and bombers in theater, especially when you consider the number of hours we operate. Don't believe everything you hear, it's nothing like flying a real airplane, the SA level is nowhere close to the same, we don't really drop that much and, despite what a certain field graders on 60 minutes say, the same rush isn't there. I don't know, maybe they're being told what to say to try to recruit people, but I doubt it.

As for manning, ISR is important, I get it, uncle already! But you don't need guys like me or even guys out of pilot training to do this job 99.9% of the time. I say bring on all the punks, shoe clerks, retired guys, contractors, navs, whoever wants to operate these things. It's obvious that there is no consideration for skill, experience, or ability required even for that .1% of the time it's actually needed, so bring em on I say.

Clearedhot, there is the capability to allow one pilot to control 4 drones at once, but the "leadership" doesn't want to accept the miniscule risk involved. "What if all 4 engines shit the bed at once? What if all 4 have to shoot at the same time? CHAOS! AHHHHHHH!!!!"

[Magellan]

However, are the guys dropping RPAs from UPT middle of their class? Unless we want to go back to TAMIing dudes half way through their first fighter assignment, isn't it an improvement to have eager volunteers coming into the community at 10% of the cost and bringing skills equivalent to "middle of the road guys out of pilot training"?

It is hard to stratify where the UPT grads stack up against their class mates and to claim they are middle of their class. First off you had lots of T-38 guys going into the platform and so typically they would be top-third to top-half of their T-6 class by default. However from the T-1 T-44 classes the guys that seem to be getting RPAs are the bottom of the barrel unless someone in the middle or bottom third "volunteers"(i.e. are the only person(s) to not put them as the last two choices on their dream sheet.) Also, among those it seems to be the trend that the guys who "volunteer" seem to do things like put Creech 8 out of 22 and Cannon like 16 out of 22.

The BIGGEST problem I see moving forward though is having two different career fields doing the exact same job. With the only way to minimize that being to make it so the only rated pilots in the RPA community are the ones who volunteer for it. That way they have no reason to gripe about the differences, because they volunteered to be in that situation.

[Rifleman96]

I truly wonder if the community will tear itself apart.

I wonder what will happen when large numbers of dudes/dudettes get to the end of their commitment. For folks in the business;

Are the claims of high job satisfaction true?

What is the divorce rate?

What is the DUI rate?

What is the retention rate?

I am a simple man and it would seem to me the answer is NOT to train more dudes...NOT to create UAV only pilots who lack SA. The answer has to be technology. We need to develop systems that allow one pilot to fly multiple systems and only intervene when completely necessary. We need to develop sensors that don't simply stare at one spot or are limited to a soda-straw view of the battlespace. When we can open our aperture and have one person controlling 4-8-12 RPAs with each RPA have a field of view and field of regard that covers many miles in a single look, then we will have arrived at something we can sustain.

Oh...and I am completely in favor of putting GCS' in move favorable places like Fl, Co, Ca, and Hi.

Q1. An emphatic NO!

Q2. Just about the same as anywhere if not a little less.

Q3. It's low because we're always in crew rest. And we get guys who have DUI's from other airframes.

Q4. I know of a NAV/UAV Pilot who will be re-enlisting getting that fun little bonus. We won't really start to see a retention rate until 2011 when a large number of guys come up on their ADSC.

A question, what do you mean by UAV only pilots. UPT grads or just BETA's? When comparing UPT graduates and Beta test pilots they are both on the same playing field as far as general airspace SA. We are currently just trying to plug a hole with a fast fix. If we could do it right, UAV training would last just as long as UPT. That way you can spend a lot more time to properly train dudes. If we can train JTACs/ATC types (enlisted) to understand airspace than I believe that non-upt officers can learn it. I will go even further by promoting Warrant Officers in as the backbone force behind UAV ops. Putting trust and faith in the ability and "professionalism" in our enlisted force to get the job done produced accomplished pilots like (Ret) Brig Gen Chuck Yeager. It's only going to get bigger. The UAV career field is stifling for the junior officers in my opinion. Apparently UAV officers are already given special consideration at a promotion board because of the lack of opportunity for avenues of advancement/improvement. If we could have the UAV field somewhat mirror Army Aviation then it would give those officers a better chance for career broadening.

I second the idea of spreading out the GCS's to allow sharing the load. I recommend we spread it out to two on every base and dual qual everybody. Operating the UAV takes very little brain power and I think people at the different bases could cycle through every-so-often. Fly the real aircraft a couple months then spend a month operating the UAV.

In my opinion it takes very little airmanship to do this job. I am fully confident that the 11B1P (MOS) Specialist "Rifleman96" would be able to handle the same job as 11U3A Capt "Rifleman96", the only difference is a piece of paper and another set of wings on the chest.

[nsplayr]

Generally agree with your points except the following two:

If we could do it right, UAV training would last just as long as UPT.

If you say it's so easy, then why would you want the training to last as long as UPT (with the associated costs)? Nav school, ABM school, enlisted aviation pipelines are shorter than UPT and yet there is sufficient time to develop the "airsense" needed to be a nav or controller or load/eng or whatever. If it really is that easy then I think the timeline the betas are using seems about right. Like someone said, if the quality is similar to middle of the road UPT grads at a fraction of the time and costs, then I think that's tracking towards a win.

I recommend we spread it out to two on every base and dual qual everybody. Operating the UAV takes very little brain power and I think people at the different bases could cycle through every-so-often. Fly the real aircraft a couple months then spend a month operating the UAV.

Absolutely not. Honestly, do you think dudes in other airframes have time to dual-qual, learn another airframe (no matter how easy it may be), and take time away from their primary duties to spread the load? I know in AFSOC we don't, no thanks. And it's no aversion to the RPA mission set; a setup like that would not only be incredibly expensive (spreading out GCS costs to every flying wing in the AF), but it would be another example of doing more jobs with the same amount of time and less people.

A combo of it's own career field, technology that allows one pilot to fly multiple birds, some of our OCO commitments eventually winding down, those are the way to stabilize this problem.

[Rifleman96]

Generally agree with your points except the following two:

If you say it's so easy, then why would you want the training to last as long as UPT (with the associated costs)? Nav school, ABM school, enlisted aviation pipelines are shorter than UPT and yet there is sufficient time to develop the "airsense" needed to be a nav or controller or load/eng or whatever. If it really is that easy then I think the timeline the betas are using seems about right. Like someone said, if the quality is similar to middle of the road UPT grads at a fraction of the time and costs, then I think that's tracking towards a win.

Absolutely not. Honestly, do you think dudes in other airframes have time to dual-qual, learn another airframe (no matter how easy it may be), and take time away from their primary duties to spread the load? I know in AFSOC we don't, no thanks. And it's no aversion to the RPA mission set; a setup like that would not only be incredibly expensive (spreading out GCS costs to every flying wing in the AF), but it would be another example of doing more jobs with the same amount of time and less people.

A combo of it's own career field, technology that allows one pilot to fly multiple birds, some of our OCO commitments eventually winding down, those are the way to stabilize this problem.

I primarily recommended the longer FTU to squash any concerns of those of you out there who are still flying. So that you know the people operating the UAV's have a strong foundation on tactical airspace. I would like to see the FTU pumping out quality products instead of the standard gap fillers. It would make for safer operations.

You're right on the dual-qual. It is just a pipe-dream, like hoping to go back to a real aircraft after this assignment. The cost alone, would be too much to spread all the resources required throughout the nation's bases.

[Radio]

I primarily recommended the longer FTU to squash any concerns of those of you out there who are still flying. So that you know the people operating the UAV's have a strong foundation on tactical airspace. I would like to see the FTU pumping out quality products instead of the standard gap fillers. It would make for safer operations.

You're right on the dual-qual. It is just a pipe-dream, like hoping to go back to a real aircraft after this assignment. The cost alone, would be too much to spread all the resources required throughout the nation's bases.

18Xs and CSOs have a few more rides in FTU. Also, compared to all other RPA pilots, the 18Xs have extended Combat Mission Ready training in their operational squadrons. This is basically more actual combat missions with an experienced pilot sitting over their shoulder and giving them additional tasks during the ride (simulated Hellfire runs, mock 9 Lines, mock restricted airspace to deal with, etc.). This is like Rifleman's idea of extended FTU, only probably more useful because the stud has to maintain real world SA while performing the training tasks. It obviously doesn't bring the 18Xs' SA up to the same level as a second assignment single-seat guy, but it seems like a step in the right direction.

[Guest Arlington]

AFPC wants to send me to Creech for MQ-1. What is the lifestyle for the crews? I know I'd get a 120-day to Balad but what is the duty like in garrison? I just want a tour where I can be home more with Mamma.

[PasserOGas]

The air force does have GCA's in more desireable locations. You just have to be in the guard/reserves to use them.

[Guest Arlington]

Thx. 'preciate it. Do you know what the shifts are like? How busy are the crews? Vegas is fine with the Wifey and me.

[Karl Hungus]

The air force does have GCA's in more desireable locations. You just have to be in the guard/reserves to use them.

Reason number one billion to go guard/ reserve. Even the so-called "bad" jobs are better than their AD counterparts. Put AD UAV squadrons at Homestead, Patrick, MacDill, and Hickam and suddenly UAVs become appealing to a lot more people. Instead there's Cannon.

[Guest Scribe]

Thx. 'preciate it. Do you know what the shifts are like? How busy are the crews? Vegas is fine with the Wifey and me.

I've been in and out of there plenty of times since it was renamed to Creech and started setting up shop as Mecca for UAV control from afar. I was there as recently as last Nov for several days and talked to several folks across the gamut from sitting in double wide type cubicles in the JUAV COE to the folks in units training or operating Preds/Reapers. If you like Vegas and don't mind a little commute (wide open highway once you leave NW Vegas burbs, but don't blink or you'll miss Creech; it ain't much more than a cluster of buildings on the side of the road). It's not 9 to 5 because supported orbits are not, but it's the Air Force so it's organized shift rotation. There's no IEDs and most everyone you meet speaks English so enjoy as best you can. One thing I have noted is since UAS/RPA are here to stay, those who embraced it (voluntarily or otherwise) are rising up competitively and absorbing airline refugees from even Navy to fill holes resulted in a fair number of O-5/O-6s who got command and even moved on to either DC or ACC.

[RescueRandy]

I think BETA program is in Limbo. When someone came in to talk about RPAs at a formal course I am attending we were told, "The best Beta guys are about as good as the middle of the road guys out of pilot training...they simply don't have the same SA."

I think those that have referenced this to say that the BETA guys are as good as a middle-of-the-road UPT grad mis-read it. The speaker was saying that the BETA guys are as good as a middle-of-the-road UAV operator that graduated UPT. I hate to be the cold-hearted bastard, but (with exceptions) the UAV operators from UPT were not middle-of-the-road when in UPT.

[SurelySerious]

I hate to be the cold-hearted bastard, but (with exceptions) the UAV operators from UPT were not middle-of-the-road when in UPT.

Either way, it doesn't matter; they're all in the same boat, ok pilot or not.

Has anyone not passed the FTU out of UPT?

Edited April 22, 2010 by SurelySerious

[Magellan]

I think those that have referenced this to say that the BETA guys are as good as a middle-of-the-road UPT grad mis-read it. The speaker was saying that the BETA guys are as good as a middle-of-the-road UAV operator that graduated UPT. I hate to be the cold-hearted bastard, but (with exceptions) the UAV operators from UPT were not middle-of-the-road when in UPT.

Affirmative

[SurelySerious]

Oh...and I am completely in favor of putting GCS' in move favorable places like Fl, Co, Ca, and Hi.

It seems as if some higher ups do not share the same disposition. We can theoretically put them anywhere...

Air Force officials announce candidate list for basing of MQ-1/9 ground control stations

The list of candidate bases was approved by the secretary and chief of staff of the Air Force and includes: Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D.; Langley AFB, Va.; Mountain Home AFB, Idaho; and Whiteman AFB, Mo.

Not the worst, but since the UAV community has Holloman and Cannon locked down, they could give them something along the lines of a Patrick to offset. As has been mentioned in other discussions, no one is entitled to a nice location, but it would be cool.

[Hacker]

I think those that have referenced this to say that the BETA guys are as good as a middle-of-the-road UPT grad mis-read it. The speaker was saying that the BETA guys are as good as a middle-of-the-road UAV operator that graduated UPT. I hate to be the cold-hearted bastard, but (with exceptions) the UAV operators from UPT were not middle-of-the-road when in UPT.

This is what one of the RPA SQ/CCs has to say about the Beta guys:

The "test" was whether they made it through FTU. Their FTU class is the worst seen to date and their passage was mandated from above - even with that, the training report said that the best of them were worse than the worst of every one else that ever made it through prior.

So, not only is the underlying assumption of the skills of the "average" UPT graduate that goes to RPAs incorrect, but the actual assessment of the Beta class performance seems to be massively mis-stated.

[Magellan]

So, not only is the underlying assumption of the skills of the "average" UPT graduate that goes to RPAs incorrect, but the actual assessment of the Beta class performance seems to be massively mis-stated.

Is this good news or bad news for the 11XX and even the 11UX guys? I would say it is neither really.

In regards to the UPT studs coming to RPAs in my opinion I have seen a few people get pushed through phase 3 of UPT to include failed 88s and 89s with the writing seemingly on the wall only to be retained and get RPA assignments. If RPA assignments weren't on the table would these guys still be getting through the program, or are those the standards for what is safe and acceptable to graduate as a pilot presently? Not trying to place blame on anyone or start a witch hunt...just looking for some honest opinions.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Magellan

[SurelySerious]

In regards to the UPT studs coming to RPAs in my opinion I have seen a few people get pushed through phase 3 of UPT to include failed 88s and 89s with the writing seemingly on the wall only to be retained and get RPA assignments. If RPA assignments weren't on the table would these guys still be getting through the program, or are those the standards for what is safe and acceptable to graduate as a pilot presently? Not trying to place blame on anyone or start a witch hunt...just looking for some honest opinions.

Apparently the same treatment is happening to get them through the Pred FTU, like with the Beta guys, for quantity over quality. So now you have pred pilots who think they can just slide through. I quote, "What are they going to do, kick me out? They can't because they need too many Pred pilots." Certainly not all of them think this, but no one should.

[Hacker]

In regards to the UPT studs coming to RPAs in my opinion I have seen a few people get pushed through phase 3 of UPT to include failed 88s and 89s with the writing seemingly on the wall only to be retained and get RPA assignments. If RPA assignments weren't on the table would these guys still be getting through the program, or are those the standards for what is safe and acceptable to graduate as a pilot presently? Not trying to place blame on anyone or start a witch hunt...just looking for some honest opinions.

I am currently a Phase III IP, and my Squadron Commander has said, in no uncertain terms, that "the minimum performance standard is a student who will be successful as a BUFF copilot." So, I haven't personally seen the weak sisters you're referring to passed through to graduation with the understanding that they'll soak up the RPA on assignment night.

[Guest Arlington]

What makes the RPA job so crummy? Too busy? Low morale? Folks don't like "flying" when their feet don't leave the ground?

[ClearedHot]

What makes the RPA job so crummy? Too busy? Low morale? Folks don't like "flying" when their feet don't leave the ground?

Yes

[Guest Arlington]

Just how busy are they? Thx

[Radio]

This is what one of the RPA SQ/CCs has to say about the Beta guys:

So, not only is the underlying assumption of the skills of the "average" UPT graduate that goes to RPAs incorrect, but the actual assessment of the Beta class performance seems to be massively mis-stated.

Quote

The "test" was whether they made it through FTU. Their FTU class is the worst seen to date and their passage was mandated from above - even with that, the training report said that the best of them were worse than the worst of every one else that ever made it through prior.

This quote has a lot of logical problems. First, two FTU classes have graduated that included beta / future 18X officers. Not classes that contained just beta guys. Beta guys won DG for both classes. So were instructors intentionally marking down the 11X officers in each class to produce a 18X DG? Were both classes the worst ever?

Second, the vast majority of beta grads went through FTU without ever hooking a ride. But some hooked because they didnt meet the standards. If IPs were told to pass them no matter what, then why hook anyone? If all the betas were the worst ever, why didn't everyone hook multiple times?

Third, the quote assumes a widespread agreement among IPs and a lack of ethics to "let" the betas perform better than 11Xs within each class. I can tell you from first hand experience that many of the IPs take the Pred mission incredibily seriously (especially CAS). FTU IPs grew up all in different airframes and many are civilians. It is hard to believe they would all go for a sudden and unprecedented drop in standards that produced the 17 worst Pred FTU grads in history.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Radio

[Guest ish]

It seems as if some higher ups do not share the same disposition. We can theoretically put them anywhere...

Air Force officials announce candidate list for basing of MQ-1/9 ground control stations

Not the worst, but since the UAV community has Holloman and Cannon locked down, they could give them something along the lines of a Patrick to offset. As has been mentioned in other discussions, no one is entitled to a nice location, but it would be cool.

Does that mean Creech and Cannon are going away or is the AF adding to those locations?

What is the deployment/TDY tempo like for those flying RPA's from Creech/Cannon?